"Childcare In The UK 'Most Expensive In World'" Sky news report

[LittlePickleHead]

news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16064005

The cost of childcare is forcing women to turn down jobs or give up work because they can't afford the cost of childcare.

This is true personally, DH and I are holding off on trying for DC2 until DD is in school as putting two into childcare would cost more than I can earn. Much tougher is on those who already have children who have no lost tax credits or subsidised childcare and are now being forced into poverty.

My cycnical side thinks that taking mothers out of the workplace has many benefits for the government...

We have 2 DCs, one 2 and the other 5 months. I have recently returned to work and am spending £864 a month on three days a week. Salary sacrifice takes care of about half of it but it is still more than our mortgage and about 1/3 of our take home pay. It is almost not work financially ms returning to work but I must to for future professional reasons as well as my own wishes.
We have Also had to pull one child out of the nursery they were settled in as it was a SureStart nursery which had had to reduce it's provision due to staff cuts.
The net result is that although we are currently bringing in a joint income of £60000 we are just about breaking even. If this is the case for us then it is no wonder that so many are getting into debt.

You don't always get help by being poor. I've started college in an attempt to get work yet as an over 20 single person on disability the only help i might get for my son is the college fund.

And I'm voluntarily trying to get work, not forced by the government.

See that is mental GeekLove. Who would consider £60k too low a salary to afford two children, but I can so believe it.

risible to suggest any nursery be a not for profit business.if someone has gumption to set up a business with all the hassle and paperwork they deserve a profit.not some omnipotent state wanting it for free
would you suggest not for profit in any other sectors...plumbing?architecture?

When we were trying for a baby, we had worked out we could afford to have one, as childcare costs would be out weighed by my returning to work, even if it was PT. Then we found we were expecting twins! Total and utter panic, as we hadn't expected or budgeted for this eventuality! So I became a SAHM until they were 3 and started free nursery, then went back to work PT. However, as they are getting older, my wages haven't increased much, DH's have decreased (no overtime or bonuses) and child care is now a real problem, especially during holidays, at the moment, it is just about do-able, but it soon won't be, especially if they stop the child benefit, which is what often keeps us afoat each month,

Two things to say about this:

1. £325 quoted as the average full time childcare cost? What a joke. See, this is why this is going to turn into another non-story and nothing will change. Everyone will say, "Well, £325 isn't much is it?" Where the FCK do they get that figure from? Everyone I know pays about 3 times that amount. Try £1000 a month, just for DD2. More than our mortgage and all our other bills put together*.

2. How dare anyone tell me I should just quit my job and be grateful to stay home with my children, that I should make a sacrifice for them, it's my job as their mother. If I take 7 years off work to see them both into school, I will be harming my career so badly that I will never make up the the loss of pay rises, and as such will never be able to afford to buy a bigger house so they'll still be in bunkbeds in their teens. And we certainly won't be able to afford to send them to uni so that they can have a decent future. So I'd not only be sacrificing my future, but harming theirs too.

But they're girls, it's OK, they don't need an education as they can stay home and raise babies, like women should.

We already have pre-schools which have charity status. They provide childcare, though it is not often full daycare but instead morning or afternoon sessions.

Charities still make profit from some activities... it's just not paid to shareholders instead it is reinvested or used to support various projects the charity funds.

Is some of the problem due to wages not going up that much? With restrictions now on overtime, factories working a 4-day week, that sort of thing... wages in some sectors seem to be frozen, or worse they dropping. NMW rises in October, so some people may get a rise but that will come at a cost - for a small business a rise in NMW is another cost they need to absorb, or pass on to the customer.

Sorry, got a third thing to say.

How has childcare in this country gone so wrong that it's the most expensive in the world, many women are priced out of the job market by childcare costs, and nursery staff are still on minimum wage? Why are nurseries so expensive to run? This needs to be very seriously looked at and addressed.

Quote: "How dare anyone tell me I should just quit my job and be grateful to stay home with my children, that I should make a sacrifice for them, it's my job as their mother. If I take 7 years off work to see them both into school, I will be harming my career so badly that I will never make up the the loss of pay rises, and as such will never be able to afford to buy a bigger house so they'll still be in bunkbeds in their teens." surely that's a sacrifice you make when you decide to have kids? You either work and earn more and pay for childcare, or stay at home and earn nothing, but save on childcare. Both have their ups and downs, but at the end of the day the choice is that of the parents. Bunkbeds are not ideal, but nor are they serious hardship.

"And we certainly won't be able to afford to send them to uni so that they can have a decent future. So I'd not only be sacrificing my future, but harming theirs too."

If things stay like they are now, or even with the changes in 2012, they can take loans like the vast majority of other students. A parent on a low wage doesn't make it impossible for a child to go to university. Sure, the debts are frightening and undesirable (I am definitely not in favour myself), but they are now a fact of life for many. Your children's tuition fees in 10-15 years cannot be used to justify your desire for subsidised childcare now.

That said, childcare is expensive and I do understand the predicament. It's catch 22 for so many people, but that's the way it is. It's like housing, the situation is ridiculous, but what can be done, realistically?

And I imagine nurseries are expensive to run partly as a result of overheads. It's not just the cost of wages - premises, furniture, equipment, staff training, food, taxes, profits, taxes... I think nursery staff should earn more but that would only push the costs up even further.

nurseries are as entitled to make profit as any other business. the statutory paperwork,inspections,adherence to early years syllabus, maintenance of building isnt cheap

Heyhissyness,
Sorry for late reply. It is subsidised by the government in denmark.

There are higher taxes in denmark, but not as high as people think compared to the UK once things like council tax are taken into consideration and they also have higher wages so compared to the UK the average person is much better off, especially comparing house prices and rents. The housing market there is much more regulated so it cannot get silly like London.
No-one has a problem with state schools in the Uk what is wrong with state nurseries. besides in countries liek Denmark children start school later, often at 6, so I suspect one of the reasons for children starting so early here is the fact that parents cannot afford to keep paying childcare.
I think this and the housing market is something that the UK really needs to address as it is making it impossible for people to live. How can an average couple in london pay a thousand on childcare each month (where is this magical place where it only costs £96 a week), and save up 25% for a deposit in a place where a grotty one bedroomed flat goes for quarter of a millon?

in terms of DK, agree with Kelly2000.

Tax in Denmark is stagnated (for example, I just finished a 6 month temp job and (paid 38% tax, with the first 3500 kroner tax-free). People can pay anywhere up to 60% depending on their income. Plus there is no council tax here, which makes a difference.

It is heavily government subsidised (and the same prices for childminders) - we're paying 3500 kroner a month for 2 children in childcare (childcare is only full-time in Denmark) compared with paying just over £1000 a month for them in childcare 2 1/2 days a week in London (we lived there for 1 year). It's one of the main reasons I was desperate to leave London as financially it would not have made sense for me to work and I have student debts to repay, so not working is not really an option.

Childcare allocation depends on where in Denmark you are living I think. In Copenhagen there is big demand for 'vuggestue' (6 months to 2 years 10 months - most children start around 1 year old) so you need to put them on the waiting list for where you want them to go within 4 months of them being born, otherwise you risk them going to another nursery, or having to wait a long time. 'Børnehave' is from 2 years 10 months until school (6) and most nurseries are integrated meaning that they have a børnehave attached to the vuggestue. I know quite a few who have had problems with getting their children into their preferred nursery in Copenhagen, no idea about the smaller towns or villages though. But they do try to listen to people's wishes - we have always managed to keep our 2 at the same place for example (first one, then we moved to London, then another one when we came back).

Why is the mother's salary used in the calculation when using it as the benchmark for whether it's worth returning to work or not?

Surely both salaries should come into the equation?

Truckrelented - because even though childcare costs are coming out of a communal family pot, if the wages of one parent are less than childcare costs, the family will be worse off no matter what the other parent's wages. And
sadly, usually the mother is the lower earner.

heyannie - you set up your user name to address me? No need, really! . Seriously, I do realise that children can get student loans later in life. But I was trying to make the point that it's short-sighted to believe that having a parent at home is best for the child. In the short-term perhaps. But those years have long-term consequences for the family's financial situation that goes way beyond just doing without luxuries for the few years that the (usually) mother isn't at work.

My DH has said he's happy whether I work or not, he is on a decent wage, but the household budget can't stretch to childcare costing more than my pay. That's why I work PT. It is affecting my prospects (see my thread "should I stay or should I go") but I am in a bit of a catch 22. I can't afford full time work unless it's in management so wages balance childcare, but I can't get the experience needed for the move to management unless I go full time.

We pay £58 a day for nursery for DS. I am pg with DC2, and once I am back to work and with commuting costs all my salary will accounted for. I will go back to work, because to take a career break will effect my earning potential greatly. We will have to switch to an interest free mortgage in the interim.

To a degree, I accept this. Kids are expensive, and we are very happy with the childcare the nursery provides. It's second to none. It's a short term problem, and things will get easier for us.

What riles me though is the gap between people like us who are deliberately choosing to 'cap' the number of children we have and those that can have as many as they want because just adding to the numbers increases their income.

DH's step Sister has 6 DC's. She has never worked, and her DP has had the odd casual job. However, they have no intention of stopping having DC's because essentially their income increases every time they have another one.

Whilst I would never choose to have 6 DC myself, the costs of child care for us do grate a little when we think of her choices.

nurseries are expensive to run because the vast majority are a stand alone business. They don't have the benefit of macro level savings.

But parents don't want chains. Time and time again they choose local, individual nurseries, run by local people. That's understandable...but expensive.

wideawake whenever it grates about your DH's step sister, just remember that you don't want that life. Nor do you want ti for your precious DC.

60% tax sounds horrendous. I for one am cancelling all plans of emigrating to Denmark.

DD goes to a small chain of nurseries - they have about 6 branches I think. I am very pleased with our local branch.

I agree that it is true for me.

I would be in a much better position if I could drive though, as I live rurally and you need to be able to drive to cut commuting time (unpaid hours you have to pay childcare for) and access better paid jobs. When I tried to go back to work after DD was born there were NO childminder's that would take her and that I could get to. My wages also made me ineligable for housing benefit even though on their own they didn't even cover my rent, and even plus top-up benefits they wouldn't cover rent and bills. It was a really shit position to be in.

I wish the government would accept that the prohibitive cost of driving for young people and low wage earners is a massive factor for many people.

The parents in my social circle include the following SAHM: An ex-Cambridge professor, a GP, a hospital consultant, 2 solicitors and 3 chartered accountants. All 7 have found they are unable to continue their careers at present because (a) there is little provision for childcare sufficient to wrap around careers that do not fit in the 9-5 mould (even on a 3 or 4 days flexi basis), and (b) once there is more than one child in the equation and you have to juggle both nursery and school holiday needs, costs become so prohibitive that most mums are unwilling to work for up to 10 years for effectively no take home pay whatsoever (once you factor in the costs of flexi-care to cover wrap-arounds and the like).

Now, other than the fact that these mums all miss work and wish they could continue their careers in some way, there's no real hardship to their families because they have made that decision - they are lucky enough to have choices, and losing the family holiday and not trading up to a nicer house isn't a 'hardship' by any stretch of the imagination. But I do struggle to see how any country can afford to see such educated people staying out of the workforce for such long periods of time. The maths just do not add up over (say) a 40 year span - you educate people to degree/post-degree and you need those educated people to then pay back in terms of taxes, and you need them to save for pensions and you need them to spend the take home pay in order to effectively ensure that other people also remain employed - basic economics shows that the more money is spent by a nation, the more people are employed, the lower the tax burden becomes.

The govt stance on ALL social security makes no sense to me at all. We complicate things so much that it costs far more than it should do to administer the govt budget, to the effect that we have a lower standard of living (across all sectors except the very wealthy) than all of the traditionally 'high tax' countries that can use central funds to underwrite the provision of decent creches and holiday clubs and decent after-school assistance and the like. It is all Absolutely Barking.

StillSquiffy - Surely all those SAHMs have some form of freelance/part time option they can do though?

Why is it always such an all or nothing attitude? Flexible by hour working can work for everyone in these time where companies are generally GLAD when people leave as profits are so tightly squeezed.

Amongst other things (including medical issues) one of the reasons that DD is an only is because Childcare would have cost us too much with 2, and by the time DD went to school the urge that I had to have another child had decreased....then I decided that 6/7 years between sibling was too much .

A friend of ours had twins the year before we had DD. At the time we were living in Germany and friends take home wage was 1400 Euros. Her childcare (with discount) was 1200 Euros. She had to return to work (contract) so spent the next year working full time, 8-6 for 200 euros a month! I remember being horrified at this, and later worrying about it when pregnant myself...

"There are higher taxes in denmark, but not as high as people think compared to the UK once things like council tax are taken into consideration"

The tax burden upon a person in Denmark is significantly higher in Denmark than in the UK. Look at the study that calculated the "Tax Freedom Day" for nations within the EU (this takes into account direct and indirect taxation):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day.

Denmark is right up near the top, the UK is right at the very bottom.

The conclusion is simple, we pay a lot less tax than other European nations. Denmark is able to afford the level of support that it gives because it taxes a lot more.

The level of UK tax we pay at the moment cannot support the current level of Government spending and subsidy, which is why we're in such a mess of debt, yet alone giving even more to the people.